4.6 Article

An optimal defense strategy for phenolic glycoside production in Populus trichocarpa - isotope labeling demonstrates secondary metabolite production in growing leaves

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 203, 期 2, 页码 607-619

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/nph.12811

关键词

carbon allocation; isotope labeling; optimal defense; phenolic glycoside; salicinoid; secondary metabolite; tradeoff

资金

  1. Max Planck Institutes for Biogeochemistry and Chemical Ecology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Large amounts of carbon are required for plant growth, but young, growing tissues often also have high concentrations of defensive secondary metabolites. Plants' capacity to allocate resources to growth and defense is addressed by the growth-differentiation balance hypothesis and the optimal defense hypothesis, which make contrasting predictions. Isotope labeling can demonstrate whether defense compounds are synthesized from stored or newly fixed carbon, allowing a detailed examination of these hypotheses. Populus trichocarpa saplings were pulse-labeled with 13CO2 at the beginning and end of a growing season, and the 13C signatures of phenolic glycosides (salicinoids), sugars, bulk tissue, and respired CO2 were traced over time. Half of the saplings were also subjected to mechanical damage. Populus trichocarpa followed an optimal defense strategy, investing 13C in salicinoids in expanding leaves directly after labeling. Salicinoids turned over quickly, and their production continued throughout the season. Salicin was induced by early-season damage, further demonstrating optimal defense. Salicinoids appear to be of great value to P.trichocarpa, as they command new C both early and late in the growing season, but their fitness benefits require further study. Export of salicinoids between tissues and biochemical pathways enabling induction also needs research. Nonetheless, the investigation of defense production afforded by isotope labeling lends new insights into plants' ability to grow and defend simultaneously.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据